All posts in category Nuclear

Is the climate part of energy-and-climate legislation about to get thrown under the bus?

As Congress gets back to work, one of the big questions looming on the Hill is whether it’s time to park plans for a national curb on greenhouse-gas emissions and focus on a narrower energy bill. The rationale? Energy reform, even to boost clean energy, enjoys some cross-aisle support. Capping greenhouse-gas emissions has proven a tough slog even within the majority Democrats. And the health-care fight has undoubtedly dented enthusiasm for another bruising battle.

There’s plenty of chatter out there to that effect. Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley said yesterday that “I think you can expect everything but cap-and-trade,” referring to upcoming Senate work on energy legislation. Politico details the back-and-forth.

Sen. John Kerry, co-author of two of the four cap-and-trade bills bouncing about, is horrified by the prospect. He told E&E News:

“If you separate climate from energy reform, you slow your ability to create those clean jobs because every market expert tells you those energy reforms can’t take hold unless you price carbon. Unless you do something comprehensive you’re just going a more expensive, less effective route and you’ll keep trailing other countries.”

Don’t laugh—the idea has some currency in Canada. Homer’s bumbling nature—you’ve seen him at work inside the Springfield nuclear power plant—simply reinforces public worries about the safety of nuclear power. Mr. Burns doesn’t much help the industry’s image. Three-eyed fish don’t help, either. And Lisa Simpson’s eco-activism is the icing on the cake.

That’s from philosophy professor Bill Irwin, who’s been making the rounds on Canadian radio in the wake of the decision by the province of Saskatchewan to nix plans for a new nuclear reactor. Dr. Irwin wrote “The Simpsons and Philosophy: The D’oh! of Homer,” one of his several books on the confluence of TV and philosophy. (Wait for Tony Soprano on cap-and-trade.)

The idea that the Simpsons could influence public attitudes toward nuclear energy isn’t so far-fetched: As much as we harp on mundane issues such as economics, lead times, supply chains, and the waste issue, it’s entirely possible that Homer has a bigger audience than MIT reports…

Senators John Kerry, Lindsey Graham, and Joe Lieberman outlined the very bare framework of their compromise climate bill, an effort to jumpstart the Senate’s stalled legislation on energy and global warming.

Details are sketchy: The compromise legislation aims for a 17% reduction in U.S. emissions over the “near term,” which Sen. Lieberman indicated means 2020. That’s a little less than the current Senate bill and a little more than the House bill that passed in June.

So much for details. The rest of the compromise bill is still a mystery—a concession, the lawmakers said, to committee chairmen who will actually shape final legislation. Sen. Kerry said the “specific language” could be put together in January and February.

About all that could be gleaned from the senators’ press conference is that the new bill is cast first and foremost as a vehicle for jobs creation and energy independence. Maybe that’s the key to getting broader support in the Senate.

Every so often, the world’s planned nuclear renaissance runs into concerns about future availablity of the main fuel source for all those reactors.

A few news items this week fuel those concerns. Chinese officials acknowledge that their planned nuclear push could strain uranium supplies in the future—especially since Chinese uranium production seems well below domestic needs already. And India’s existing nuclear fleet is running well below capacity because of shortages of domestic uranium. India has also planned a massive nuclear-energy expansion. All that has Russia eager, as always, to step into the breach with offers to supply uranium to potential new customers.

The fears over “peak uranium” boil down to simple math: The world presently consumes a lot more uranium than it produces. The latest numbers from the International Atomic Energy Agency say global annual consumption is 69,100 tons; global production from mining is around 43,000 tons. The difference—for now—is basically made up from nuclear-weapons stockpiles, which obviously aren’t an infinite resource.

That’s the arithmetic that has renewed “peak uranium” chatter in recent weeks…

Duke Energy boss Jim Rogers is a big voice on energy and climate change for a couple of simple reasons. He runs a big utility, heavily invested in coal power, and he’s an outspoken proponent of climate-change legislation that spooks many of his peers.

So his take on America’s energy future is usually interesting. No exception in this recent interview with the Council on Foreign Relations, where he makes the case for why nuclear power will likely beat coal in a country still heavily reliant on the black stuff.

Coal has all sorts of issues, he says, not just carbon emissions. Coal plants produce other particulate emissions, create fly-ash dumps, and promote harsh mining practices…

The nuclear option seems to be back on the table, with new bipartisan legislation designed to promote a fresh wave of nuclear power plant construction. Is there an easier way?

Senators Lamar Alexander of Tennessee and Jim Webb of Virginia this week introduced the “Clean Energy Act of 2009,” which skips all the contentious bits of current energy legislation—like a cap-and-trade plan to curb greenhouse-gas emissions—in favor of directly promoting low-carbon energy, with special fondness for nuclear power.

Flickr

The idea is to double nuclear power generation in the U.S. over the next 20 years, in addition to launching mini-Manhattan Projects for other clean-energy sources, such as solar power, electric cars, and biofuels.

“If we were going to war, we wouldn’t mothball our nuclear navy and start subsidizing sailboats. If addressing climate change and creating low-cost, reliable energy are national imperatives, we shouldn’t stop building nuclear plants and start subsidizing windmills,” said Sen. Alexander in a press release.

But the biggest problems with new nuclear construction are the same they’ve ever been: time and money. New plants take a long time to build, and as a result are very expensive, which threatens to strain the balance sheets of even the biggest U.S. utilities. Thus the emphasis in the new legislation on expanding loan guarantees for the industry.

If new nuclear is problematic, what about squeezing existing nuclear plants harder? That’s the idea behind nuclear uprates, or overhauls to existing plants to make them produce more electricity…

Energy and climate change have already leapt to the forefront of President Obama’s Asian tour—even in countries he’s not visiting.

Associated Press

There was the call today by Mr. Obama and Japanese Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama to cut their countries’ greenhouse-gas emissions some 80% by 2050. That’s a terribly ambitious target, and more modest climate measures already face plenty of pushback domestically in both countries, but neither man is likely to be worried about reelection by then—or much else.

And the U.S. and Japan also announced more cooperation on clean energy. There was the usual talk about “collaborative” research in new energy technology, and sharing the burden when it comes to making the smart grid and clean coal a reality.

But one bit in particular seems interesting: “Strengthened partnership on nuclear energy including on advanced fuel cycle technologies…”

That pretty much boils down to figuring out the best—and most affordable way—to reprocess spent nuclear fuel…

We mentioned yesterday the International Energy Agency’s outline of what the world’s energy future would look like over the next 20 years if it took serious steps to tackle climate change, rather than continuing on a business-as-usual course.

In a nutshell, the IEA’s vision of the next two decades would make T. Boone Pickens crow: Wind power and natural gas are the two big winners under the IEA’s climate-change scenario. In contrast, clean coal and nuclear power—battlehorses of the traditional energy business—might play only a relatively minor role over the next two decades, the IEA says.

This comes from the IEA’s World Energy Outlook, when it breaks down just what electricity-generation technologies will be used to power the world and power it cleanly (page 236, for those of you playing along at home).

Over the next 20 years, the world needs 4,900 gigawatts of new electricity-generation capacity, the IEA says. Of that…

There will be plenty of folks reading the tea leaves after today’s off-year elections, most notably the gubernatorial contests in Virginia and New Jersey. They’re seen as an early referendum on the Obama administration (or not.)

One thing is already clear: Energy as an issue has fallen off a cliff, apparently following public concern about global warming.

When the Virginia governor’s race got going this summer, energy was a hot topic, echoing the central role that energy policy held during the 2008 elections. Virginia, a big importer of electricity, was a battleground for hot-button issues such as offshore drilling, the future of coal, nuclear power, and renewable energy. Republican Bob McDonnell (who entered election day with a double-digit lead in polls) rode the “drill, baby, drill” chant to big applause at early rallies.

But from the campaign you’d never know either candidate—Creigh Deeds is the Democrat—even had an energy policy…

About Environmental Capital

Environmental Capital provides daily news and analysis of the shifting energy and environmental landscape. The Wall Street Journal’s Keith Johnson is the lead writer. Environmental Capital is led by Journal energy reporter Russell Gold, and includes contributions from other writers at the Journal, WSJ.com, and Dow Jones Newswires. Write us at environmentalcapital@wsj.com.